There are two types of manslaughter: voluntary manslaughter, where the liability of a defendant otherwise liable for murder is reduced to manslaughter by virtue of one of three special defences available on a charge of murder (ie provocation, diminished responsibility by reason of abnormality of mind, or in pursuance of a suicide pact); and involuntary manslaughter, which differs from murder in relation to the mental element which is necessary to support the charge. Involuntary manslaughter is committed where the defendant does not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (unlike murder) but where death results from an unlawful act which any reasonable person would recognise as likely to expose another to the risk of injury or is caused by a grossly negligent act or omission, or where the person who causes death is reckless as to the risk of serious injury.

My fee is 500 guineas, sir.

He intended to commit an unlawful act (from the reports given, it was presumably starting a fire). In what sense the fire was 'attempted' is not clear to me, but, hey, it's US law and is therefore not required to make much sense. But he didn't have to intend to kill or cause GBH in order to commit manslaughter.

That's 750 guineas and rising, sir.

I have another theory: he attempted to to kill someone and pretend he didn't mean it, but his attempt at pretending failed. Mind you, I'm surprised that pretending you didn't mean to kill someone then not killing them is considered a crime.

Well, RMH, it's a theory, but it bears little relation to the facts. If he really intended to kill or attempt to kill, it would be murder not manslaughter. In fact, he intended to start a fire. The prosecution generously accepted that he didn't intend, by means of that fire, to kill or bodily harm anyone. I'm not sure you can have a pretend or attempted intention in law. Either you intend something or you don't. The question is what you intend. If your intention is not real - you don't really intend it but say you do - your pretence might be an intent to threaten which amounts to a crime in itself eg threat to kill someone but an intention to threaten is not necessarily proof of an intention to commit the crime of murder.

What I find hard to understand is why it was attempted - he really did start a fire and it's not as if his box of matches were damp or something like that.

perhaps they should invite him back in on a pretext, like a free car or summat, then fry his ass

it's the only way to be sure

I thought we were back onto John Darwin again. I mean rowing for five years is a bit of a death row.

If you set fire to a house there's a chance you may kill someone, in this case a child. Intent is not quantifiable and we all know and he must have known the possible outcome.

I've read up a little bit on this case, and the balance of probabilities is that this is a case of the US Prosecutors looking to save face and offering him the chance to be free a lot earlier than if they spent the next x years on retrials, appeals etc....

Effectively the forensic evidence was duff, but his counsel was too uninterested to challenge it and it took several years to get a lawyer who would. Despite the fact that their case was in shreds, the local prosecutor (the initial one by the way got elected for office) consistently refused to accept this and and counter-appealed any appeal won by Richey. If they really thought they could successfully get a murder conviction at a re-trial they would have done - instead they cut a deal which means they can still say they got their man, while Richey walks free.

Richey sounds like a piece of work to be honest, not someone you'd want to invite round for Christmas, but on the other hand the evidence against him was flimsy to say the least....

[quote="linighan_sisters"]Well, RMH, it's a theory, but it bears little relation to the facts. If he really intended to kill or attempt to kill, it would be murder not manslaughter. In fact, he intended to start a fire. The prosecution generously accepted that he didn't intend, by means of that fire, to kill or bodily harm anyone. I'm not sure you can have a pretend or attempted intention in law. Either you intend something or you don't. The question is what you intend. If your intention is not real - you don't really intend it but say you do - your pretence might be an intent to threaten which amounts to a crime in itself eg threat to kill someone but an intention to threaten is not necessarily proof of an intention to commit the crime of murder.

Hmmm so then all facts are based on theory

Looking at the reports (Toledo Blade) what he's pleading "No Contest" to is not actually starting the fire according to his lawyer.

"The charges of attempted involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment, he said, are “based on this trail of events: (1) Hope Collins asked Kenny to baby-sit for her daughter, Cynthia; (2) Kenny agreed to baby-sit; (3) Kenny did not baby-sit, leaving Cynthia in harm’s way; (4) As a result, Cynthia died."

ie, that he was negligent and didn't take care of the child. The Breaking and Entering is about a plant he stole from a Garden Centre that night. He denies even agreeing to babysit according to the lawyer, but given the big charges (murder and arson) have been dropped, he's decided to accept the bargain in order to get home earlier. Ironically, he's been taken to hospital (heart problems) so won't be home for Christmas after all....h

well, there was this bloke who lied about being married, and how much he hated his "mother-in-law." Does that count as a pretend in law?

I'm glad someone noticed the bulge in my cheek when I wrote my theory. But Parmo's theory is so much better.